To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

Memorandum in support of complaint of Kelly Alexander, Jr. folder [black]

THORNBURG
Cite as 106 S.Ct.
Amendments to the United States Constitu-
n and of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act.3
After appellees brought suit, but before
al Congress amended § 2. The amend-
pnt was largely a response to this Court's
1 irality opinion in Mobile v. Bolden, 446
fjs 55- 10° S-Ct 1490, 64 LEd-2d 47
n980), which had declared that, in order to
stablish a violation of either § 2 or of the
Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments, mi-
ority voters must prove that a contested
lectoral mechanism was intentionally
dopted or maintained by state officials for
a discriminatory purpose. Congress sub-
tantially revised § 2 to make clear that a
violation could be proven by showing discriminatory effect alone and to establish as
the relevant legal standard the "results
test" applied by this Court in White v.
Regester, 412 U.S. 755, 93 S.Ct. 2332, 37
L.Ed.2d 314 (1973), and by other federal
courts before Bolden, supra. S.Rep. No.
97-417, 97th Cong.2nd Sess. 28 (1982), U.S.
Code Cong. & Admin.News 1982, pp. 177,
205 (hereinafter S.Rep.).
Section 2, as amended, 96 Stat. 134,
reads as follows:
"(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or
procedure shall be imposed or applied by
any State or political subdivision in a
manner which results in a denial or
abridgement of the right of any citizen of
the United States to vote on account of
race or color, or in contravention of the
guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2), as
provided in subsection (b).
"(b) A violation of subsection (a) is established if, based on the totality of the
circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or
3. Appellants initiated this action in September
1981, challenging the North Carolina General
Assembly's July 1981 redistricting. The history
of this action is recounted in greater detail in
the District Court's opinion in this case, Gingles
v. Edmisten, 590 F.Supp. 345, 350-358 (EDNC
1984). It suffices here to note that the General
Assembly revised the 1981 plan in April 1982
and that the plan at issue in this case is the 1982
plan.
v. GINGLES 2759
2752 (1986)
election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation
by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) in that its members
have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in
the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to
which members of a protected class have
been elected to office in the State or
political subdivision is one circumstance
which may be considered: Provided,
That nothing in this section establishes a
right to have members of a protected
class elected in numbers equal to their
proportion in the population." Codified
at 42 U.S.C § 1973.
The Senate Judiciary Committee majority
Report accompanying the bill that amended
§ 2, elaborates on the circumstances that
might be probative of a § 2 violation, noting the following "typical factors:" 4
"1. the extent of any history of official
discrimination in the state or political
subdivision that touched the right of the
members of the minority group to register, to vote, or otherwise to participate
in the democratic process;
"2. the extent to which voting in the
elections of the state or political subdivision is racially polarized;
"3. the extent to which the state or
political subdivision has used unusually
large election districts, majority vote requirements, anti-single shot provisions,
or other voting practices or procedures
that may enhance the opportunity for
discrimination against the minority
group;
"4. if there is a candidate slating process, whether the members of the minori-
4. These factors were derived from the analytical
framework of White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755, 93
S.Ct. 2332, 37 L.Ed.2d 314 (1973), as refined and
developed by the lower courts, in particular by
the Fifth Circuit in Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485
F.2d 1297 (1973), affd sub nom. East Carroll
Parish School Board v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636,
96 S.Ct. 1083, 47 L.Ed.2d 296 (1976) {per curiam). S.Rep. 28, n. 113.

J. Murrey Atkins Library Special Collections (University of North Carolina at Charlotte)

Digital Publisher

J. Murrey Atkins Library Special Collections (University of North Carolina at Charlotte)

Rights

These materials are made available for use in research, teaching and private study. The digital reproductions have been made available through an evaluation of public domain status, permissions from the rights' holders, and authorization under the law including fair use as codified in 17 U.S.C. section 107. Although these materials are publicly accessible for these limited purposes, they may not all be in the public domain. Users are responsible for determining if permission for re-use is necessary and for obtaining such permission. Individuals who have concerns about online access to specific content should contact J. Murrey Atkins Library.

Location of Original

J. Murrey Atkins Library Special Collections (University of North Carolina at Charlotte)

Grant Information

Digitization made possible by funding from the federal Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) under the provisions of the Library Services and Technology Act as administered by the State Library of North Carolina, a division of the Department of Cultural Resources.

THORNBURG
Cite as 106 S.Ct.
Amendments to the United States Constitu-
n and of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act.3
After appellees brought suit, but before
al Congress amended § 2. The amend-
pnt was largely a response to this Court's
1 irality opinion in Mobile v. Bolden, 446
fjs 55- 10° S-Ct 1490, 64 LEd-2d 47
n980), which had declared that, in order to
stablish a violation of either § 2 or of the
Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments, mi-
ority voters must prove that a contested
lectoral mechanism was intentionally
dopted or maintained by state officials for
a discriminatory purpose. Congress sub-
tantially revised § 2 to make clear that a
violation could be proven by showing discriminatory effect alone and to establish as
the relevant legal standard the "results
test" applied by this Court in White v.
Regester, 412 U.S. 755, 93 S.Ct. 2332, 37
L.Ed.2d 314 (1973), and by other federal
courts before Bolden, supra. S.Rep. No.
97-417, 97th Cong.2nd Sess. 28 (1982), U.S.
Code Cong. & Admin.News 1982, pp. 177,
205 (hereinafter S.Rep.).
Section 2, as amended, 96 Stat. 134,
reads as follows:
"(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or
procedure shall be imposed or applied by
any State or political subdivision in a
manner which results in a denial or
abridgement of the right of any citizen of
the United States to vote on account of
race or color, or in contravention of the
guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2), as
provided in subsection (b).
"(b) A violation of subsection (a) is established if, based on the totality of the
circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or
3. Appellants initiated this action in September
1981, challenging the North Carolina General
Assembly's July 1981 redistricting. The history
of this action is recounted in greater detail in
the District Court's opinion in this case, Gingles
v. Edmisten, 590 F.Supp. 345, 350-358 (EDNC
1984). It suffices here to note that the General
Assembly revised the 1981 plan in April 1982
and that the plan at issue in this case is the 1982
plan.
v. GINGLES 2759
2752 (1986)
election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation
by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) in that its members
have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in
the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to
which members of a protected class have
been elected to office in the State or
political subdivision is one circumstance
which may be considered: Provided,
That nothing in this section establishes a
right to have members of a protected
class elected in numbers equal to their
proportion in the population." Codified
at 42 U.S.C § 1973.
The Senate Judiciary Committee majority
Report accompanying the bill that amended
§ 2, elaborates on the circumstances that
might be probative of a § 2 violation, noting the following "typical factors:" 4
"1. the extent of any history of official
discrimination in the state or political
subdivision that touched the right of the
members of the minority group to register, to vote, or otherwise to participate
in the democratic process;
"2. the extent to which voting in the
elections of the state or political subdivision is racially polarized;
"3. the extent to which the state or
political subdivision has used unusually
large election districts, majority vote requirements, anti-single shot provisions,
or other voting practices or procedures
that may enhance the opportunity for
discrimination against the minority
group;
"4. if there is a candidate slating process, whether the members of the minori-
4. These factors were derived from the analytical
framework of White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755, 93
S.Ct. 2332, 37 L.Ed.2d 314 (1973), as refined and
developed by the lower courts, in particular by
the Fifth Circuit in Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485
F.2d 1297 (1973), affd sub nom. East Carroll
Parish School Board v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636,
96 S.Ct. 1083, 47 L.Ed.2d 296 (1976) {per curiam). S.Rep. 28, n. 113.